IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/shr/wpaper/18-02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Payment and Provision Consequentiality in Voluntary Contribution Mechanism: Single or Double “Knife-Edge” Evidence?

Author

Listed:
  • Jie He

    (Département d'économique, École de gestion, Université de Sherbrooke)

  • Jérôme Dupras

    (UQO)

  • Thomas G. Poder

    (Centre de Recherche du CHUS, Université de Sherbrooke)

Abstract

We conducted a field stated preferences survey to understand the joint and separate effects of payment and provision consequences on hypothetical bias associated with voluntary contribution. Based on four treatment groups and a contingent-ranking willingness to pay (WTP) question, this paper provides some support for “single” knife-edge evidence, which suggests that a respondent facing positive provision consequences will report a significantly higher preference only if the payment consequence is co-presented. For the payment consequence, its negative impact on WTP was independent on the presence of provision consequence; we therefore reject the “double” knife-edge evidence.

Suggested Citation

  • Jie He & Jérôme Dupras & Thomas G. Poder, 2018. "Payment and Provision Consequentiality in Voluntary Contribution Mechanism: Single or Double “Knife-Edge” Evidence?," Cahiers de recherche 18-02, Departement d'économique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    • Handle: RePEc:shr:wpaper:18-02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://gredi.recherche.usherbrooke.ca/wpapers/GREDI-1802.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bohm, Peter, 1972. "Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 111-130.
    2. Poe, Gregory L. & Vossler, Christian A., 2009. "Consequentiality and contingent values: an emerging paradigm," MPRA Paper 38864, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Kalle Seip & Jon Strand, 1992. "Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: A contingent valuation study with real payment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 91-106, January.
    4. Francisco Alpizar & Fredrik Carlsson & Olof Johansson-Stenman, 2008. "Does context matter more for hypothetical than for actual contributions? Evidence from a natural field experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 299-314, September.
    5. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    6. Hensher, David A., 2010. "Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 735-752, July.
    7. Habibov, Nazim & Cheung, Alex & Auchynnikava, Alena, 2017. "Does social trust increase willingness to pay taxes to improve public healthcare? Cross-sectional cross-country instrumental variable analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 25-34.
    8. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    9. Vossler, Christian A. & Kerkvliet, Joe & Polasky, Stephen & Gainutdinova, Olesya, 2003. "Externally validating contingent valuation: an open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 261-277, June.
    10. Yohei Mitani & Nicholas Flores, 2014. "Hypothetical Bias Reconsidered: Payment and Provision Uncertainties in a Threshold Provision Mechanism," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(3), pages 433-454, November.
    11. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    12. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Vassilopoulos, Achilleas & Lusk, Jayson L. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr., 2015. "Reference dependence, consequentiality and social desirability in value elicitation: A study of fair labor labeling," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202705, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Yohei Mitani & Nicholas E. Flores, 2009. "Demand Revelation, Hypothetical Bias, and Threshold Public Goods Provision," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(2), pages 231-243, October.
    14. repec:feb:framed:0073 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    16. Cummings, Ronald G & Elliott, Steven & Harrison, Glenn W & Murphy, James, 1997. "Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(3), pages 609-621, June.
    17. Helen R. Neill & Ronald G. Cummings & Philip T. Ganderton & Glenn W. Harrison & Thomas McGuckin, 1994. "Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 145-154.
    18. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2004:i:6:p:1-13 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Herriges, Joseph & Kling, Catherine & Liu, Chih-Chen & Tobias, Justin, 2010. "What are the consequences of consequentiality?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 67-81, January.
    20. Glenn Harrison, 2006. "Experimental Evidence on Alternative Environmental Valuation Methods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 125-162, May.
    21. Craig E. Landry & John A. List, 2007. "Using Ex Ante Approaches to Obtain Credible Signals for Value in Contingent Markets: Evidence from the Field," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(2), pages 420-429.
    22. Jorgensen, Bradley S. & Syme, Geoffrey J., 2000. "Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 251-265, May.
    23. Ronald G. Cummings & Laura Osborne Taylor, 1998. "Does Realism Matter in Contingent Valuation Surveys?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 203-215.
    24. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & Morikawa, Takayuki & Shiroishi, Fumiaki, 1991. "Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 253-268, November.
    25. Thomas G Poder & Jérôme Dupras & Franck Fetue Ndefo & Jie He, 2016. "The Economic Value of the Greater Montreal Blue Network (Quebec, Canada): A Contingent Choice Study Using Real Projects to Estimate Non-Market Aquatic Ecosystem Services Benefits," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, August.
    26. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-266, March.
    27. Bulte, Erwin & Gerking, Shelby & List, John A. & de Zeeuw, Aart, 2005. "The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 330-342, March.
    28. Champ, Patricia A. & Moore, Rebecca & Bishop, Richard C., 2009. "A Comparison of Approaches to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 166-180, October.
    29. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    30. Interis, Matthew & Petrolia, Daniel, 2014. "The Effects of Consequentiality in Binary- and Multinomial-Choice Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(2), pages 1-16.
    31. Vivien Foster & Ian J. Bateman & David Harley, 1997. "Real And Hypothetical Willingness To Pay For Environmental Preservation: A Non‐Experimental Comparison," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1‐3), pages 123-137, January.
    32. Karen Blumenschein & Glenn C. Blomquist & Magnus Johannesson & Nancy Horn & Patricia Freeman, 2008. "Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 114-137, January.
    33. Alpizar, Francisco & Carlsson, Fredrik & Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2008. "Full title Does Context Matter More for Hypothetical Than for Actual Contributions? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," RFF Working Paper Series dp-08-02-efd, Resources for the Future.
    34. Richard T. Carson & Theodore Groves & John A. List, 2014. "Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 171-207.
    35. Thomas C. Brown & Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop & Daniel W. McCollum, 1996. "Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 152-166.
    36. Caplan, Arthur J. & Grijalva, Therese C. & Jakus, Paul M., 2002. "Waste not or want not? A contingent ranking analysis of curbside waste disposal options," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 185-197, December.
    37. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    38. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2000. "Valuing the Multiple Impacts of Pesticide Use in the UK: A Contingent Ranking Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 1-21, January.
    39. Vossler, Christian A. & Watson, Sharon B., 2013. "Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 137-147.
    40. Peter Bohm, 1972. "Estimating the demand for public goods: An experiment," Framed Field Experiments 00126, The Field Experiments Website.
    41. Vossler, Christian A. & Evans, Mary F., 2009. "Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: Environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 338-345, November.
    42. Gregory Poe & Jeremy Clark & Daniel Rondeau & William Schulze, 2002. "Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(1), pages 105-131, September.
    43. Glenk, Klaus & Fischer, Anke, 2010. "Insurance, prevention or just wait and see? Public preferences for water management strategies in the context of climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2279-2291, September.
    44. Jones, Nikoleta & Sophoulis, Costas M. & Malesios, Chrisovaladis, 2008. "Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: A case study in Mitilini, Greece," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2478-2491, December.
    45. Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Brown, Thomas C. & McCollum, Daniel W., 1997. "Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 151-162, June.
    46. Champ, Patricia A. & Moore, Rebecca & Bishop, Richard C., 2009. "A Comparison of Approaches to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-15, October.
    47. Thomas G. Poder & Jie He, 2016. "Willingness to pay and the sensitivity of willingness to pay for interdisciplinary musculoskeletal clinics: a contingent valuation study in Quebec, Canada," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 337-361, December.
    48. Peter A. Groothuis & Tanga M. Mohr & John C. Whitehead & Kristan Cockerill, 2017. "Endogenous Consequentiality in Stated Preference Referendum Data: The Influence of the Randomly Assigned Tax Amount," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 93(2), pages 258-268.
    49. Laura Taylor & Mark Morrison & Kevin Boyle, 2010. "Exchange Rules and the Incentive Compatibility of Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(2), pages 197-220, October.
    50. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    51. John Loomis, 2011. "What'S To Know About Hypothetical Bias In Stated Preference Valuation Studies?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 363-370, April.
    52. Foster, Vivien & Mourato, Susana, 2002. "Testing for Consistency in Contingent Ranking Experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 309-328, September.
    53. Brown, Kelly M. & Taylor, Laura O., 2000. "Do as you say, say as you do: evidence on gender differences in actual and stated contributions to public goods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 127-139, September.
    54. Malte Oehlmann & Jürgen Meyerhoff, 2017. "Stated preferences towards renewable energy alternatives in Germany – do the consequentiality of the survey and trust in institutions matter?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 1-16, January.
    55. Harrison, Glenn W. & Rutström, E. Elisabet, 2008. "Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 81, pages 752-767, Elsevier.
    56. Joseph Little & Robert Berrens, 2004. "Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(6), pages 1-13.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jie He & Jérôme Dupras & Franck Ndefo & Thomas Poder, 2020. "Payment and provision consequentiality in voluntary contribution mechanism: separate or joint effects?," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 11-36, April.
    2. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    3. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    4. John K. Horowitz & Kenneth E. McConnell & James J. Murphy, 2013. "Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 4, pages 115-156, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Jinkwon Lee & Uk Hwang, 2016. "Hypothetical Bias in Risk Preferences as a Driver of Hypothetical Bias in Willingness to Pay: Experimental Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 789-811, December.
    6. Atozou, Baoubadi & Tamini, Lota D. & Bergeronm, Stephane & Doyon, Maurice, 2020. "Factors Explaining the Hypothetical Bias: How to Improve Models for Meta-Analyses," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(2), March.
    7. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John M., 2016. "Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certaintyAuthor-Name: Beck, Matthew J," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 149-167.
    8. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    9. Kanya, Lucy & Saghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100741, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Loomis, John B., 2014. "2013 WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(1), pages 1-13, April.
    11. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    12. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    13. Richard T. Carson & Theodore Groves & John A. List, 2014. "Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 171-207.
    14. Zawojska, Ewa & Bartczak, Anna & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "Disentangling the effects of policy and payment consequentiality and risk attitudes on stated preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 63-84.
    15. Peter A. Groothuis & Tanga M. Mohr & John C. Whitehead & Kristan Cockerill, 2015. "Payment and Policy Consequentiality in Contingent Valuation," Working Papers 15-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    16. Zawojska Ewa, 2017. "A Consequential Contingent Valuation Referendum: Still Not Enough to Elicit True Preferences for Public Goods!," Central European Economic Journal, Sciendo, vol. 2(49), pages 73-90, December.
    17. Kanya, Lucy & Sanghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 238-261.
    18. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John & Greaves, Stephen, 2014. "Hypothetical bias in Stated Choice Experiments: Is it a problem? And if so, how do we deal with it?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 164-177.
    19. Pengfei Liu & Xiaohui Tian, 2021. "Downward Hypothetical Bias in the Willingness to Accept Measure for Private Goods: Evidence from a Field Experiment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(5), pages 1679-1699, October.
    20. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    hypothetical bias; knife-edge evidence; payment consequence; provision consequence; contingent ranking; voluntary donation; ecosystem services valuation.;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:shr:wpaper:18-02. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jean-François Rouillard (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deushca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.